No questions. No debate. No opposing views.

Our community is comprised of essentially two groups of people. There is a group that believes the District is doing everything it can to make the right decisions and do the right thing. There is another group that believes the District constantly drifts away from their mission and consistently makes bad decisions that have short and long-term consequences. Regardless of the group that best captures your prevailing view, there is one fact that cannot be denied - the current composition of the Board is unhealthy and unproductive for legitimate debate and progress.

Our current board lacks the ability to engage in open and honest dialogue. No one is challenged when presenting information and no one's conclusions are questioned. The board has essentially been degraded to a point of ineffective governance. Whatever district management wants, they get. No questions. No debate. No opposing views.

Why wouldn't our community seek to change this condition by electing people to the Board that care about how public resources are being spent? Why wouldn't our community seek to elect individuals that offer a pattern of constructive engagement in every aspect of district management? Our current board seems to be meeting privately to make sure that everyone takes the same position on every issue. Once the board meeting starts, no one has anything to say about any topic other than "Aye". And we wonder why no one attends board meetings.

Board meetings are a real snoozefest where the outcome is determined by the agenda and the minutes offer no new information. All that is proposed is passed. Every word that is uttered goes unchallenged. Where is the constructive engagement? Where are the discussions? Sometimes it is helpful to initiate a counterpoint or even occasionally play the devil's advocate just so our community can take comfort in knowing that all points have been offered and all positions have been presented, discussed and subjected to meaningful deliberation. Our current board is spineless.

At present, district management governs the district. The Board is impotent. District management develops an agenda and then drives it down the throat of our community with the illusion of a real board's endorsement. The end result is that our unions get weaker, staff get trampled upon, and every district employee quickly discovers that they need to jump ship and swim to shore or join in the mutiny by swearing allegiance to the kingpin of management - and we all know who that is.

Personally, I am tired of watching what has happened to our district and to our schools. When we have an ineffective board, there is no way to control the manner in which management exerts their unique form of control. Without accountability to a board, management does what they want and pays little attention to a board that is incapable of asking a probing question.

In an ideal world, the Board (or at least one that follows board policies and understands the reason why they exist at all) would stand up to bullies of management and demand a greater degree of transparency. If this current board had any real, collective intelligence, they would look around and understand that the problems plaguing the District right now are a direct result of their inability to demand more from management.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt for this current board to follow their own policies. How Gary Noble thinks that he earned his seat in the last election is still a mystery. Sure, your friends may have changed the rules, but your "election" was to the height of an earlier standard. A standard that you did not meet. As for Pat Shields, it is still shocking how he could be so closely involved in the creation of "Powerful Partners" and then allow them to go so many years without paying a dollar toward the lease they signed. And will they keep changing their name every time a bill arrives in the mail? Of course, we shouldn't forget that Ann McMurray was the one that directed Marla Miller to start negotiating for a contaminated piece of property before they even had the results from an environmental assessment. Bruce Williams was part of that decision but then his policy violations and personal issues eventually bounced him from the Board.

Something is rotten in the Edmonds School District.

I will number them for ease of reference and for the convenience of our international readers.

1. Bruce Williams moved outside of his director district, the blog and its readers easily proved it and he was compelled to resign on September 11, 2007. I won't go into the reasons as to why he relocated, but they insufficiently justify the nonsensical retention of his board seat. His appointed replacement, Susan Phillips, reads the blog frequently but has no independent thought of her own.

2. Nick Brossoit lied numerous times to cover for Bruce Williams and yet his lies were easily dismantled by the blog and its readers. When Bruce Williams moved outside of his director district, Nick Brossoit asked Mark Zandberg to redefine director districts. Then, when Mark Zandberg asked about Bruce Williams, while using a pen name, Nick Brossoit concocted a ridiculous story about modernizing a rented apartment.

3. Marla Miller entered into a scheme with Arnie Tucker of Seattle Piano Gallery to buy pianos under the disguise of a "lease" to fool the State Auditor. Then, to make matters worse, Tam Osborne issued a check for just under the legally significant threshold of $40,000.00 to buy four of these pianos. Even Arnie Tucker's lawyer characterized the piano transaction as a "scheme" and the Audit Manager was still unable to connect the dots.

4. Gary Noble ran for a seat on the Board despite two different board policies that prevented it. Sure, when you run the first time you might be forgiven because technically the violation only occurs once you are elected. When Gary Noble ran for re-election, there was no denying the fact that he was in direct violation. Nick Brossoit and the Board repeatedly denied the fact that none of them can read and understand simple English and waited until after the State Auditor told them to follow or revise board policies to actually revise them. It doesn't change the fact that Gary Noble is currently serving under the rules of the earlier policies. His day in court is coming.

5. Pat Shields was actively involved in the formation of Powerful Partners. This organization then entered into a lease with the Edmonds School District and never paid a single cent of the required rental payments. In fact, it was just a use agreement, which excluded a base rental rate and came without any financial benefit for the District. Mark Zandberg attempted to collect the rent and was always turned away. Then Marla Miller stepped in and declared that she would take care of it. The way in which she "took care of it" was to give Powerful Partners a free ride.

6. The State Auditor is an agency of hacks. I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing a few of their former employees and the stories they share would make any taxpayer shudder. In the case of the Edmonds School District, Sadie Armijo was unable to understand the concept of a property appraisal and how such devices can be easily used to defraud taxpayers. Chris Kapek was easily bamboozled by Powerful Partners changing their name to Powerful Tutors. Chris Kapek was also easily fooled by the words contained in the piano "lease" and couldn't see the intent behind the words. The State Auditor is not doing any favors for the taxpayers of the Edmonds School District.

7. Marla Miller also manipulated the process of appraising the property known as Old Woodway Elementary. While it resulted in a direct windfall to the City of Edmonds and her friends at Burnstead, the Edmonds School District lost a fortune.

8. Marla Miller also worked with Mike Raskin to convince the Board to buy a contaminated piece of property that had been rejected three times before. The fact of contamination is irrefutable, despite Nick Brossoit's statements to the contrary. The District's appraisal came in at $3,300,000.00 and the seller's came in at $5,800,000.00. The District paid $5,800,000.00 and will have to deal with the contamination whenever they make any changes to the site.

9. The Capital Partnerships Program was shifted away from Property Management, where the District was an actual project partner, to the Capital Projects Office, where the District charges for project management and every time staff moves a muscle or lifts a pencil. How is that fair to parents or community members that sell cupcakes to subsidize CPO staff salaries in addition to the increased property tax they have already paid and continue to pay every year.

10. There is also a swollen collection of imbeciles that are in positions at the District where they either have absolutely no meaningful experience or an utter absence of intellect that makes the completion of their job virtually impossible. These individuals are so arrogant that they even profess to their co-workers their amazement in how they were hired in the first place. What is troubling for the many of us looking in from the outside is that most of the District is so focused on saving the nickles and dimes in their sphere of control, they don't appear to notice the hemorrhaging going on everywhere else.

There are many other bone-jarring issues covered in the blog, but the ten points above offer a quick snapshot of what this blog is all about. We believe in public accountability and will not rest until the Board and Superintendent realize they are on the wrong path and make meaningful corrections - like resigning and moving on to a community that can more adequately afford the corruption they have allowed to take root here.

Malignant cells quickly invade the healthy tissue.

It is a sad day in our district. After identifying a problem and expressing concerns to the Board and Gary Noble, the District decided to ignore plain, simple words and instead, picked up the phone to engage a team of lawyers. A frantic search was launched, looking for any shred of information that may give the illusion that Gary Noble’s conflict of interest was just a misunderstanding. For those of us that can read, there was no misunderstanding.

Since the Board would not act to correct the problem (or revise board policies prior to the election of November 2007), we had no other choice than to seek the opinion of the Washington State Auditor. Of course, the Auditor was probably bewildered as to how a group of five English-speaking adults could not understand a rather simple board policy. After consulting with the Washington State Attorney General, the State Auditor’s Office reached a conclusion on April 23, 2008 – follow board policies or revise them.

If the Board wasn’t wrong, why would they have to revise their own policies? Have we elected a group of imbeciles? Like many others, I am starting to wonder just who is making the meaningful decisions about the educational needs of our community’s children.

Even more troubling is the fact the State Auditor waited from April 23, 2008 until October 6, 2008 before responding to the concerned citizen. What purpose could that delay have achieved other than to allow the District enough time to revise their plain, simply-worded policies? Not only did the State Auditor wait until after the revisions occurred, they also shifted the burden for responding to the core issue by claiming the County Auditor makes the determination regarding candidate qualifications.

In communicating with the County Auditor, it was made abundantly clear that the Board is responsible for monitoring their own compliance. What happened to checks and balances? What happened to accountability? The public elected citizens to serve on the Board with the understanding that board policies would be followed. Why else would we have board policies?

If board policies don’t mean anything, why would staff be terminated for violating them? Why would students be expelled for violating them? If this isn’t a double standard, I don’t know what would be.

Why would the Board allow Bruce Williams to resign? Didn’t anyone bother to tell him that board policies don’t actually matter?

Since board policies don’t actually matter, why have them at all? Why not add a statement right at the beginning of every policy that provides a disclaimer: The following policy is entirely optional and may or may not be followed, depending upon how the board feels at the time. Such a disclaimer would eliminate any confusion and prevent the public from developing any expectations.

It is no big mystery why no one attends board meetings. If board policies don’t matter, the board doesn’t matter. If the board doesn’t matter, what hope would a community member have in expressing interest in a topic or an opinion regarding our educational objectives?

To the Edmonds School District Board of Directors, you have my heartfelt congratulations. I have demonstrated on paper just why there are so few people that attend your meetings. Clearly, our community views your existence like something akin to a terminal illness. Try as we might to correct a condition, the remaining malignant cells quickly invade the remaining healthy tissue and hasten the demise of the organism.

Violating the law to protect the Supe's friends.

A few years ago, when Bruce Williams first informed the Superintendent that he no longer lived in his director district, Nick sought to modify the director district boundaries. I know because I was the one asked to make the necessary changes.

Imagine if someone living in Lynnwood wanted to sit on the Edmonds City Council. What sort of effort would be involved in drawing up new boundaries? How easy would it be to convince a jurisdiction to trim away a portion of who they are to accommodate the needs of an individual? What sense would there be in following that path? What would have happened when Bruce eventually left his seat on the school board? Would the boundaries revert to their original locations or would this long finger reaching out to the new Bruce Williams home be a permanent adjustment?

When the blog rolled into town and started asking questions, the Superintendent changed his story. Someone must have told him how difficult it would be to redefine director districts because now he was citing the recommendations drafted by a professional association. Board members can seek re-election from an address in their director district, and can move to another director district at any time after the election. Unfortunately, Bruce Williams moved prior to the election and the Superintendent knew this to be the case because he tried to make a boundary adjustment to keep his favorite board member in compliance.

The blog defines this string of circumstances as election fraud. It would be amusing to discover what the Edmonds School District calls it.

An honor is not diminished for being shared.

The Mountlake Terrace City Council is moving quickly to select a new council member to fill the seat of recently departed councilman Doug Wittinger, who has moved out of the city limits.

At its Dec. 17 meeting, the council decided to advertise the opening immediately and conduct interviews at a special meeting at 6 p.m. on Thursday, January 3 at City Hall council chambers, 23204 58th Ave. W.

The council will appoint a new council member following these interviews, so the new member can participate in the mayor and mayor pro tem selection process at the Jan. 7 regular meeting and attend training for newly elected officials in mid-January.

The term for this office expires Dec. 31, 2009.

To qualify as a council candidate, interested parties must be at least 18 years of age, a United States citizen without any felony convictions and a registered voter who has lived within the city for at least one year prior to the appointment.

Applications for this vacancy can be obtained by calling the city clerk's office at 425-744-6206 or by sending e-mail to cityhall@ci.mlt.wa.us. Applications are also available on the home page of the city Web site, www.cityofmlt.com, and at City Hall.

The due date for submitting applications either in person or via mail is 5 p.m. Monday, Dec. 31.

Editorial: Doug Wittinger bought a new residence in Edmonds and the transaction closed on September 24, 2007. Only three months passed before leaving the City Council, as opposed to a number of years for Bruce Williams. This article came from the Enterprise.

One hundred and forty-four days of blogging.

Gary and Kay Noble
While Gary sits on the board, his wife works at Lynnwood High School. This is in clear violation of board policy, despite legal counsel's rendering of the English language.

Pat Shields
Using influence to secure free rent for one of his pet projects, Pat is in violation of board policies and has no apparent ethical issue with taking public resources. Maybe I should ask about the funding for Powerful Partners' employee.

Bruce Williams
Arguably committed election fraud by relocating prior to an election. His violation of board policies prompted his resignation on September 11, 2007.

New Administration Site
Despite claims to the contrary, the new site is contaminated. If it wasn't, the District should have purchased it in 1991 when it was shockingly more affordable.

Appraisals
Many are left to question why the District chose to ignore their own appraisal and pay every penny of the seller's appraisal for a site that will cost a significant amount of money to remediate. At the per square foot Raskin was citing, the District should have sold their site to him.

Capital Partnerships
These widely-popular projects have moved to the Capital Projects Office, where management fees will mean a reduction in scope for every future partnership project.

Seattle Piano Gallery
A questionable deal appears to have left the District paying a lot of money for just four pianos. A request has been made for a copy of the $76,121.10 check that may bring the deal back to reality. Seattle Piano Gallery's owner appears to be filing for bankruptcy.

Letters of Direction
When you get one, and its only a matter of time, they apparently don't mean anything and shouldn't be taken literally. If a few short email messages diffuse the intent of a Letter of Direction, why hand them out in the first place?

Post-Resignation Conduct
Apparently, employees can never get out from under the District's thumb. Once you accept a paycheck, the District views you as owned property and unable to have an independent thought upon departing.

Don't make copies of checks
The District claims they don't retain copies of checks. This would be directly contrary to past practices for more than a decade. The tax-paying public would appreciate the retention of copies, and at ten cents per copy, it makes financial sense.

Cities do not honor Inter-Local Agreements
I have yet to receive any proof that payment has been made to support Terrace Park or Cedar Valley gym expansions. I know the District has asked for payment, but no doubt it was over turned on appeal.

Capital Facilities Plan
The board apparently doesn't read everything it adopts. The 2004-2009 CFP clearly demonstrated that student enrollment was trending downward and yet no one bothered to use the CFP when planning on financial support from the state.

Attendance Incentive Program
This program doesn't mean anything. If you show up for work every day and accumulate vacation at a greater than average rate, expect to lose everything over 30 when you leave.

Superintendent does not accept anonymous comments
And yet endorses the Auditor's use of anonymous comments to help guide the District in becoming a more efficient agency.

There are no cubicle standards in the ESC
Once upon a time, cubicles were kept at a minimum standard for the comfort and operational requirements of their occupants. Now, anyone can move high walls next to windows and cast shadows over their co-workers.

ESD15.org is not a district domain
The District thought if they camped in my yard for a few nights, they could lay claim to my house. I should have charged a tent fee.

Letter to Rob McKenna, Attorney General

rob.mckenna@atg.wa.gov

Dear Attorney General McKenna,

There is an utter disregard for the rule of law brewing in the Edmonds School District. Prior to September 11, 2007, a majority of the District's board members were in direct violation of their own policies and ineligible to hold the seats they were occupying. The following is a snapshot of these board members.

1. Bruce Williams relocated from his director district prior to an election that he subsequently won. The District's superintendent rallied to support his presence on the board by citing WASDA guidelines and recommendations but was ultimately unable to prevent Mr. Williams from doing the right thing and resigning. He resigned on September 11th.

2. Gary Noble serves on the board while his wife is an employee at Lynnwood High School. While the Superintendent has cited numerous RCWs describing how this might be permissible, District policy explicitly prevents such a conflict from arising by offering two specific policies, Board Policy 1260 and Board Policy 6810. The board, under Mr. Noble, is relocating and rebuilding Lynnwood High School without the support of demographic trends and student enrollment. While the outcome may be debatable, his conflict of interest is undeniable.

3. Pat Shields serves on the board while his "non-profit" program, "Powerful Partners" receives free rent in the District's administration building. This is happening despite a signed and notarized use agreement declaring their commitment to pay for their portion of the District's operating expenses. The agreement already discounts the rental rate because they are a non-profit program, and yet they have refused to pay for more than five years. This is a gift of public funds and a violation of board ethics, as described in Board Policy 1260, Board Policy 1270 and Board Policy 9200.

In light of these clear violations of Board Policy and this Board's inability or reluctance to enforce their own policies, I humbly request remediation by the Office of the Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Taxpayer & Voter
Edmonds School District

The day the District bought a brownfield.

"On May 10, 2005, two board members met with AMEC and Reid Middleton to talk directly with them regarding their analysis of the site. Following that meeting the board instructed me to proceed with the negotiations to purchase the site." Marla Miller

I have posed the question twice and I have not received a response from Marla Miller for this simple question: "Which two board members attended the May 10, 2005 meeting?" It is a very easy question and shouldn't require 30 days to find documentation that proves which board members made the decision to buy a brownfield.

May 10th was the day the District decided to start a limited evaluation of groundwater. It was the day the District decided to hire a licensed well driller to drill and install three wells. It was the day the District decided to start logging soil and groundwater conditions. It was the day the District decided to have the groundwater analysed for cPAHs and VOCs. It was the day the District decided to have petroleum screening analysis performed on the detention pond for HCID and PAHs. In a nutshell, it was the day the District decided to start the process toward determining the extent of contamination.

Who in their right mind would start the process of negotiations without knowing the extent of contamination? Who in their right mind would ask the Executive Director of Business and Operations to start working toward determining a price for the property when no one had any idea how expensive the clean-up would be? Who in their right mind would even momentarily think this was a good way to spend public money? Who were these unknown board members?

Since Marla Miller doesn't seem to know, I will provide her with some clues - and she won't even have to wait 30 days. Board member #1 has a medical practice in the City of Edmonds and recently resigned for violating Board policy. Board member #2 had been appointed just two months before making such a monumental and disastrous decision and currently lives in Brier.

Doctor of Medicine or Geology?

The board minutes have been released. Bruce Williams resigned because he "recently relocated his residence".

Board Minutes for September 11, 2007

Yeah, and we were all born recently. I thought he was a medical doctor not a geologist. He relocated his residence in 2005. That would be years ago. He got caught "recently".

And then there were four.

Breaking News

Blog reporters claim that a resignation was tendered this evening at the school board meeting. Unfortunately, the vacancy will be filled by appointment and the candidate will be selected by the current board of directors - two of whom will likely not be holding their seats much longer.

Stay tuned for updates through the remainder of the week.

Squeezing out a... well, one anyway

[ESD15.org staff]
In reading the exchange between Kirsten and Nick, my mind immediately called the obvious question and, quite frankly, my research shows that Kirsten was incorrect. Bruce Williams was not re-elected and then promptly left his residence. He filed as a candidate on July 25th, 2005 and then moved out of his director district in August 2005. The election was in November 2005.

School Board Policy requires that candidates immediately resign upon departing their director district. Why wouldn't Bruce and his friends take the time to revise board policy to accommodate his new circumstances.

ESD15.org makes it easy
Nick, and we all know you are reading this, please click here, print the document and hand it to Bruce on Monday.

Fun Factoid: The County Auditor's name appears on the Declaration of Candidacy document. Bob Terwilliger is the husband of Mimi Terwilliger, a fellow board member of Bruce Williams at the time of filing.

Duped by the Supe

[Nick]
I do not agree with your blog concept; by allowing anonymous posts you are promoting irresponsible communication and in fact allowing people to say untruths about the district and staff. No person or organization has a responsibility to respond in any forum to anonymous allegations. Thus, your suggestion that you are personally interested in making the district a better place does not fit with your practices.

[Mark]
People have been forwarding comments to the blog that seem a bit hard to believe. I just want to make sure I have the facts correct because I am trying not to post any inaccuracies.

1. Bruce Williams moved out of his official residence prior to October of 2006.
2. He then Quit Claimed the residence to his wife in October, 2006.
3. His wife then refinanced his former home in February, declaring that she is legally separated.
4. Bruce then moved to Park Place Apartments on Edmonds Way prior to February 2007.
5. He then bought a house outside of Director District 4 in April of 2007.
6. The deadline for filing accurate residential information with the County Auditor was June 8, 2007.

Just when, exactly did you become aware that Bruce Williams moved?

So far, it sounds like the inaccuracies on my blog are confined to the information you have been providing.

Please advise.

Mark Zandberg

Fun Factoid: Blogs are web logs that are regularly updated, some even daily. They consist of information that is related to a certain topic. In some cases, blogs are used as daily diaries about people’s personal lives, political views and commentaries. Simply put, blogs can be made into whatever the author want them to be. Blogs can be traced back in the 1990’s. Who started them is not known. Although it started during that time, it was in 1999 that people got into blogging.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

It would appear as though Dr. Williams and his wife could not legally live in the same house, as Nick Brossoit claims, because a restraining order was filed in August of 2005. So, it would stand to reason that he vacated his official residence in August of 2005, or violated the restraining order.

Oddly, why would these matters be settled in King County if the parties involved were living and working in Snohomish County? A person not living in the right director district - represents it. A couple not living in King County has their dispute settled there.

Jurisdiction: 1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies. 2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area. 3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police. 4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

If his re-election took place in November of 2005, he was not a qualified candidate at the time, let alone on June 8, 2007.

Bruce Williams was "modernizing"

[Kirsten]
Given the upcoming election for school board positions, I was wondering if it was a requirement to live in the director district you represent.

[Nick]
We have three positions open right now that will be on the November ballot, and based on the residence information we have - the current Board members who are on the ballot do reside in the correct Board member district. We do not check the address of those who file with the Auditor’s office; that office verifies the requirements.

If a Board member moves out of their director district after they have been elected and depending on when they move, they are either allowed to finish their term of office or the remaining board members select a replacement to complete that term. Then, that position would be open just as any at the regular cycle of the term. The Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) has all the legal references and requirements if you have additional questions.

[Kirsten]
Are there any such board members, currently living outside of the director district they represent, that have been allowed to continue serving on the board? If so, is such a decision made during a public board meeting or behind closed doors? What percentage of their term must be served while a resident of the director district they represent?

[Nick]
One of our current Board members, Bruce Williams moved still within the district, but outside of his “director” district. At that time, we checked with WASDA and based on the timing of his move and where it fell in his term, the law did not require him or the district to make any changes and he is allowed to complete his term. When his position opens in 2009, he would not be eligible to run for that specific “director” position based on his new residence; however, since he still lives within the district he could decide to run for the “director” district where he now resides if he wanted to when it became open. This required no district action other than to verify with WASDA at that time. It is something that was known by the Board and staff at that time as we processed that information. This rarely happens in school districts, thus you are welcome to communicate with WASDA to learn more.

[Kirsten]
I have contacted the County Auditor, as you recommended. It would appear as though Dr. Williams was re-elected and then promptly left his director district. When the majority of one's term is spent living outside of their director district, how does this serve the best interests of the public?

[Nick]
Dr. Williams was re-elected and later bought a new house; however, he stayed at his old residence while he was modernizing the new one. Thus, he did not leave “promptly” as you suggest; and when he moved it was clearly within the WSSDA parameters for him to continue on the board. Keep in mind the law requires all board members once elected to represent the whole district and at no point are they to vote or represent just their “director” districts in district matters. Thus, this law is in the best interests of the public because all board members once elected do represent all of the public in the school district. He has and continues to be a distinguished veteran board member who also has a medical practice in the district.

[Kirsten]
Such modernizations would trigger building permits.

So, Dr. Williams has more than one residence and is seeking public office from the more convenient address.

[Nick]
Painting and such does not require a building permit.

Dr. Williams was already in office and had not changed his residence; these are the rules for this type of change during any Board member’s term.

[Kirsten]
So when the District seeks a capital levy to modernize schools we shall expect the amount to be limited to the price of paint.

The auditor's response is attached. It seems responsibility has shifted back to the District.